Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV

PC System Requirements

someone should write them properly according to games for windows information:

http://www.gamesforwindows.com/en-US/Games/Pages/grandtheftautoiv.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levangvilava (talk • contribs) 08:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere on that page shows the requirements, therefore, adding information on such until official information comes out is false. I know you're trying to assume good faith, but the source does not provide the requirements, and any such predictions will be classified as false and deceptive. Ellomate (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

To be fair to the OP. The page did have the requirements on it yesterday. They have obviously been removed in the interim. - X201 (talk) 08:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

GTA IV (as Microsoft pronounces it) requirements are "Coming Soon" and if it was removed, it obvious that they are attempting to make the game more playable for Windows users (sorry Mac users, it might not come out for you guys because of RAGE). Ellomate (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This In The Unofficial Prediction Of The Game PC Requirements from http://www.gtaforums.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=2162

It's Still Unofficial, even i think it's wrong. (huge PC specs) want to believe it or not, up to you. Dalva24 (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

OS: Windows XP SP2

Processor: Dual core processor (Intel Pent:ium D or better)

RAM: 2GB

Hard Drive: 18GB free hard disk space

Video Card: 512MB Direct3D 10 compatible video card or Direct3D 9 card compatible with Shader

Drive: DVD-ROM dual-layer drive

Wait for 1 month and we will get the official PC requirements. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I bet the system requirements for GTAIV will be much like the system reqs of Mercenaries 2: World in Flames: Core 2 Duo 2.6GHz, 7GB Free space, 1GB Memory, Nvidia 6800 or greater. This is just a guess and I don't have a more reliable information to back it up but this will likely be the case because I believe that GTA IV will only be compatible with High-end computers Triadwarfare (talk) 02:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it. It will be similar to BioShock. Though RAGE have not been used in any PC games. GTA 4 PC will be first RAGE engine to run on computers. So let us wait and see. Novemeber is just few 1 week away. --SkyWalker (talk) 07:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto IV has a gold date for PC users set for Nov. 17. I expect we will see final specifications around up to 2 weeks prior to it's release. Till then, let us not speculate and wait patiently for an official set of specifications. . ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 16:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no official word from R* or T2, and i just wonder.. are really NVIDIA 8600GT and ATI 3870 comparaable cards (if you look requirements posted by IGN)?? Kaurikk (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Official word for?. Come one don't except every single info to come directly from companies. If that is the case then there is no need for GameSpy, GameSpot, IGN or any other gaming sites. If you read carefully. This specs are coming directly from Rockstar. IGN have played the real game. So there is no need to question their reliability. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No, i don't expect every single info to come from developers but as we have seen so much false/fake info about GTA IV pc version and also lots of true info that was considered as false in Wikipedia until R* or Take" confirmed it, then same line should be followed throughout entire article. I mean, it's funny to see that some info that came some weeks before pc version official announcement was considered as fake (but now we all know it was not) and now we all think it should be true that they tell? Kaurikk (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous: the whole graphics card specs being thrown around are silly, ati x1900 and nvidia 7900 for minimum seem about right, the recomended 3870 seems ok but an 8600? an 8600 is way less powerful than even a 7900GS, the weakest of the 7900 series, and other places say 8500 recomended, thats barely more powerful than an old card like an ati x1600 series. 8800 and 3870 is what the recomended should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.202.197 (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Internet Cafe/Internet

In the game, I believe the Internet Cafes are called TW@T (vagina), not TW@, as stated in the last word in the 2nd paragraph under the 'Communication' section in the article. I'm not able to edit as it's locked.. SubliminaL5 (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)SubliminaL5

It's TW@. Play the game. Ellomate (talk) 06:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You pronounce the @ as "at" so it's the same thing.--Megaman en m (talk) 09:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Good thing it is locked, do a little more checking before editing.(124.179.20.97 (talk) 12:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

@ 124.179.20.97: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=gta4+tw%40t&btnG=Google+Search Thank you for your input, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.201.35 (talk) 04:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Now compare it to the results without the t. Hmmm? --Svip^pong 11:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The 0 at the end of "Playstation 3" in the infobox should be an ). 76.105.20.199 (talk) 05:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, It is fixed. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

"Although smaller than San Andreas, Liberty City is comparable to it in terms of scope when "the level of verticality of the city, the number of buildings you can go into, and the level of detail in those buildings" are taken into account."

You mean the complete map of GTASA (consisting of 3 cities and a desert, one of which is called San Andreas) and not the city itself. The city itself was f­ucking tiny. Fix this in any way you consider appropriate to avoid confusion.

None of the cities in San Andreas is named as such. Cities in San Andreas are Los Santos, San Fierro and Las Venturas; all of them and surrounding landscape including smaller villages composes San Andreas. Pvj (talk) 09:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No either who wrote the post you are responding to but to be clear, San Andreas is the culmination of Los Santos, San Fierro, Las Venturas, and the countryside / desert. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 16:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

-Dick S. Everywhere —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.6.135 (talk) 09:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Xbox Fanboyisim

On the native resolution someone has put 640p for ps3 please change it back to 1080p —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.254.219 (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I need a source for this to correct such. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 16:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Correction: I've done some research and found that the native resolution for the PS3 is 720p as well. The PlayStation 3, however, can upscale the game to 1080p. So the native resolution is not 1080p nor 640p, but 720p. I doubt this was Fanboyism however, though it does seem questionable... ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 16:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Further correction, it is true. The Native Resolution is 640p. There is no Xbox Fanboyism, that's just the simple fact. This is why research is necessary :) ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 16:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources for this. All articles either make the claim with no sources, or reference this article[1] about someone who posted on a forum based on a screenshot given to him (as the examiner had no PS3 himself; even the authenticity of the screenshot provided to him is in question). There has been no second examination, simply one report on one forum that got mentioned on 50 gaming sites. When Halo 3 on the 360 was suspected of rendering at a lower resolution, this was confirmed true by the developers, and there was also a hardware reason for doing so (the XBox 360 specific "predicated tiling" feature, which could not hold an anti aliased buffer any larger than this). For this rumour, however, there has been no developer confirmation, and no followup of any kind. It is a widespread rumour, but that doesn't mean it's true. - Rainwarrior (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

PC World magazine said in an article that it is "confirmed".[2]. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is this considered reliable? The only "confirmation" it offers is the "counting pixels" article (which I linked above[3]), which is the same source the rumour stems from in the first place. "Confirmed" should mean that more than one source has verified it, which is not the case here. This rumour is not verifiable. - Rainwarrior (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's pretty weak as it offers no details about the conformation itself. It is referring to the counting pixel article as the report, and says it is confirmed. The consensus in the original discussion was basically that if a publication that is considered reliable says that it is confirmed, then that's good enough to satisfy WP:V. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it does satisfy WP:V. I don't see anything there that suggests that this article should be considered a reliable source, and it definitely fails: "sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article". The only support it offers is citing the Beyond3D forum post, which is in no way a reliable source. - Rainwarrior (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest bringing this up on the GTA Taskforce to see if consensus has changed. As PC World is a reliable publication, then it was accepted that when they say that it's confirmed then they have done some fact checking. However as they don't show their own proof (I don't think they're citing the forum post as proof), then I think you make a good argument. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was Disagree with the merge. -- SkyWalker (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

---

The martketing article is absolutely ridiculously pointless. One video game doesn't need an entire article devoted just to its marketing. I suggest this either be merged into the actual GTAIV article or be moved to Marketing for Grand Theft Auto and include marketing details on its predecessors. VG Editor (talk) 09:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree with a merge. Much like Halo 3, the marketing for GTA IV was on a much larger scale than the average game. The trailer countdown website, the massive box art reveal, the wanted posters and radio phone in messages were all something different to normal marketing methods, and they all got media attention. While some things wouldn't be harmed by reducing the detail, I think we'd be losing sourced info if all the content was merged into GTA IV. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
• Also disagree - this article is too big already. We split off the Marketing and the Characters and still have 84kb. –xeno (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
• I disagree too. GTA 4 Marketing was huge and whatever information about marketing must go there. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
• I also disagree. Marketing for Grand Theft Auto IV was on a large scale beyond that of many games, comparable only to Halo 3. Not just the Viral Advertising and Public Events in addition to the countdown and reveals, but also: the Limited Edition Consoles, the Special Edition, Soundtrack, and even the massive promotion given by other media outlets. The Marketing for Grand Theft Auto IV deserves it's own article and as per such, they should be kept separate. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 16:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
• I also disagree. Marketing for GTA IV was on a much larger scale when compared to other video games, and as such, deserves its own page. MOOOOOPS (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
• I think that this needs to be moved to Marketing for Grand Theft Auto and split off into sections for marketing for each game, from GTAII to San Andreas etc. It is a bit unnecessary to have an entire article devoted to one game's marketing, have it for the series as a whole. 60.242.127.62 (talk) 08:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

GTA 4 is well knows for it marketing. I don't think it necessary to have Marketing for Grand Theft Auto for now. I don't think other GTA games such has San Anderes had huge marketing. For now let GTA 4 marketing have its own page. --SkyWalker (talk) 09:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We can's speak about marketing for GTA IV, only thing we can talk is about marketing for console versions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaurikk (talk • contribs) 18:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ragdoll Physics?

In the Vehicles section of the main article, it states, "The physics engine will turn the player into a rag doll after a crash, instead of using a predefined animation, resulting in more realistic collisions."

Is this right? I thought that it used the Euphoria engine, which is quite a bit different from ragdoll physics.

Gamer 2k4 (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you understood the sentence wrong. It explains that player is not using any animation when he flies trough the windshield like other games would use and is more like a ragdoll like normal person would be when he might fly trough a windshield. This just means that it doesn't require any preset animation when it does that but really crates the animation on the spot and its effected by everything that happens at that time when it happens. To me its not trying to say it uses just ragdoll physics but almost all the flying when you are dead is just ragdoll as you can't control a dead body. Still it could be worded better as it gives the chance to be mistaken. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well 80.221.239.213 why can't you reword it so it make sense?. --SkyWalker (talk) 10:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well because first I can't edit the page at the moment only view the source text. Secondly I would rather let someone else who is more fluent with english to do it as if I would do it there would be mistakes that someone else would have to fix later. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

A predefined animation is recorded with the use of mocap and can't be changed when initiated. With the Euphoria engine however it can be changed. The characters are ragdolls being controlled in real time by "behaviors". So the movements of the characters are created on the spot and can be changed. And this is exactly what happens when Niko flies through the windshield.--Megaman en m (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you may have missed Gamer 2k4s point. He/she is arguing that the game doesn't use ragdoll phsyics because it uses the Euphoria engine which doesn't use ragdolls. This is supported by Euphoria (software) but without a gret ref or a clear explaination of what the difference is beyond the claim 'it's better'. Nil Einne (talk) 10:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Why Release date has changed?

I heard PC release date in US has changed to December 2 and its indicated in the infobox but not in the article. The date should be put there along with why this change happened, does anyone know why it was delayed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.43.168 (talk) 02:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no official confirmation regarding the release date change. If you or anyone can get official press release stating the date change please add. Adding IGN, GameSpot and Amazon and so on are considered unreliable sources which it comes to release dates. --SkyWalker (talk) 10:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Skywalker, I'm confused. I definitely remember this conversation with you where you had the entire opposite viewpoint. (to be fair, so did I) Nar Matteru (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ha, Well Bully indeed came for PC. :). Nat but this is a different from that conversation. Gaming sites such has IGN, GameSpot, GameSpy and also Amazon and such sites guess release dates without any confirmation. Take 2 has not confirmed any delays. Why would they hide the delays when the game is announced for November release?.--SkyWalker (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I figured it would, but that was still without take 2 announcement. I really, really hope they are wrong on this and that itll still come out in November, but Considering how many times R* has delayed games/ports in the past I fear they are right. As for not announcing a delay, thats not somethign theyd be very loud about, imo. We'll see if they do or not. (I'm guessing a subtle change on the websites where date is listed or some such) Nar Matteru (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well my point was that if there was one date in the infobox and another one in the article, the infobox should be reverted to the previous date if there is no official statement, right? --98.110.43.168 (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It already has been changed back as someone did not like my sources, which in the hopes of optimism that my sources are wrong, is fine by me. However yes, I was originally in error buy not changing it within the article as well, but now its a moot point. Nar Matteru (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The delay is confirmed now. Though iam not sure about Europe release date. :)--SkyWalker (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

:(( Nar Matteru (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well if you check the Games for Windows site it says that it will be released at 4th of December not the 2nd. Either its wrong or it might be the European release date or the real date don't know. It would be also nice to know where IGN got the information of it being delayed as I don't find it on Rockstar or GTA IV site. --80.221.235.130 (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

IGN got the information from Rockstar. They even got the official system reqs and plus they were able to play PC version.--SkyWalker (talk) 05:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It is the US Games for Windows site that says 4th of December. GB version still says 21st of November. Maybe it's just the US release that's delayed? 91.152.193.8 (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Some say it's going to be worldwide (but R* or Take2 has not confirmed any delay yet - meaning only rumor). By the way, on Games For Windows site, there are 3 different dates: 18.11.2008. 02.12.2008 and 04.12.2008. So i suggest to remove all release dates that differ from official Take2 press release (http://ir.take2games.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=326627) because there is no official word from T2 or R*. Kaurikk (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

2 December official international release date, huh? If IGN was considered a reliable source, why didn't we put that in 6 days ago? Amisnaru (talk) 11:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Duh... 6 days ago. There were no official confirmation. --SkyWalker (talk) 11:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah? The story that's linked as a source was published October 30th. Amisnaru (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Story?. Which?, What?, How?, When?, Where?--SkyWalker (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

http://pc.ign.com/articles/925/925515p1.html that. Someone edited the PC release date and put that as a source. 1. It's not official - 2. It doesn't say that's the international release date. --Amisnaru (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Iam the one who added it. It is official. Yes it does not say International release date neither it says US or EU. How is it possible that US is delayed to Dec 2nd and EU is for Nov 21?. That is not even possible. When i removed EU someone readded it back. So it was best to say that Dec 2nd is worldwide release. --SkyWalker (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'm just not used to game companies making announcements this important through IGN. Amisnaru (talk) 06:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not just IGN, There is GameSpot, GameSpy, EuroGamer, 1UP, GamesRadar, ComputerandVideo Games and many others. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine, but I still wish Rockstar or Take2 would come forward with an announcement themselves. Silly of them 'cause the game is such a big deal. 137.163.18.99 (talk) 11:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Emm.. i checked all these sites you mentioned SkyWalker and there is one funny thing.. EuroGamers still has 21 november as release date and no mention about delay, GameSpy refers to IGN article to possible delay, on 1UP and GamesRadar there is still 18 november and on ComputerAndVideoGames they say "Rockstar seems to have confirmed rumours in the US that Grand Theft Auto IV on PC has slipped a few weeks" but they are not sure. And Gamespot are referring to some retailers. So actually there is only IGN who is claiming that R* told them. If you check some biggest European online retailers (Gameplay.co.uk, game.co.uk etc) you will see 21 november as release date. It reminds me the time when PC version was not officially confirmed by R* but there where some rumors about release date and everytime they were but up into wiki they where removed and said that source is not reliable (and if i remember correctly, it was you SkyWalker who told that) and now you but up information that is not officially confirmed.Kaurikk (talk) 11:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, IGN site, that told us about the delay, it has these release dates for PC version: US: December 2, 2008, Europe: November 21, 2008, Australia: December 2, 2008. I changed PC release dates back to official because if IGN can't get their own site correct then how can we believe them? Kaurikk (talk) 11:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Look, The reason why i have removed GTA 4 PC before was it was just rumors and speculation. Rumors and Speculation should not be entered in Wikipedia. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

There has been no offical announcement from R* in the form of a press release, so i dont think its right to say that the international release date is the 2nd of december when there is no proof, infact if you look at all european retailers they still show 21st like the press release states —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.92.2 (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Heck, How many TIMES should i tell you there is no need for official announcement. Can't you people read in this link (http://pc.ign.com/articles/925/925515p1.html) that the delay is officially announced by Rockstar THROUGH IGN. The delay neither says if Dec 2nd is only for US only or if it is international and certainly says NOTHING about Europe. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Then what you have said yourself is ambiguous and shouldnt be used, its not fact.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.92.2 (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

WHERE does it say quote: "that the delay is officially announced by Rockstar"? The only thing they claim to be official in that article is the system requirements. Also, it still doesn't make sense that they would ONLY announce the delay via IGN. And you dare to act like we're the ignorant ones here. Buh gawd. Amisnaru (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

SkyWalker, can't you read what stays on IGN site?? Release dates: US - december 2, EU november 21. Does these dates make sense? No, they don't. And now read what you stated earlier: "Rumors and Speculation should not be entered in Wikipedia".. and what you are doing now? You say some stuff we came up months ago didn't suite to wiki because they were not confirmed by R* and now you say there is no need of confirmation. Bullshit. Kaurikk (talk) 07:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The release dates of "US - December 2, EU November 21" make perfect sense if the US version has to be modified to get a lower ESRB rating. It also makes sense if there is a problem with their US manufacturing or delivery companies. This is a speculation, I know, but you should not discard information because you think that people only do stuff that seems sensible to you. --89.235.199.148 (talk) 09:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The official release dates for the game are December 2nd in North America and December 3rd in Europe. So speculation is for null as its listed on the GTA IV official site. --80.221.235.130 (talk) 14:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

ok... I guess that settles it then! --98.110.43.168 (talk) 03:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Windows version

The section needs to be updated. Yesterday GameSpot, GamesRader and IGN has given more details about the game. It is best if it is updated.--SkyWalker (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you update it yourself? You seem to know a lot about the game and read all the articles about the PC version. 137.163.18.99 (talk) 11:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you ignoring me because I'm unregistered? 137.163.18.99 (talk) 09:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Chill man nobody replies to every single post --98.110.43.168 (talk) 05:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

gta iv 1.04

hey wiki guys and girls ive just added that ps3 is now 1.04 i see no problem with the first section that says ps3 1.04 xbox360 1.01 it just that you may wanna improve my section under updates either for presentation and additional information giving on just what this patch does —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.96.244 (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

GTA 4 being understood as "Satire"

I motion to have this article identify GTA4 as more than a game, but also a satire. Understanding gaming as a reasonable and relevant form of artistic expression is worthy of being expressed in a Wikipedia article. I have read, and am willing to produce, evidence that states "Liberty City" was seen as the main character during the development process. Liberty city, and the million dollars that went into bringing it to life - was done with the intent to satire American culture in a post 9/11 society. This is reflected by nearly every recording of dialogue, verbs and in-game media. Understanding GTA4 as merely a "game" would be similar to proposing that Jonathan Swift's modest proposal was primarily a proposal. In reality - they are both well developed and socially relevant satires. Furthermore; if we fail to express this point - we face the persistent threat that the forms of media we all enjoy will continue being seen as childish and insignificant. This also undermines us as a society and the attempts of the developers who created GTA4. I do not motion to make this an amendment to all video-game articles. I feel, however, that GTA4 is in dire need of this addition simply because of its unique and influential nature. I guarantee you, in the history books, GTA4 will be best understood as both a video-game and an intelligent satire of inexplicable depth and importance. Please take into account my motion to amend the introduction to note that GTA4 is also primarily a "satire." --Schleife (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. GTA IV is primarily a game. Admittedly, the ingame world is a satire of post-9/11 in addition to being a necessity for the game. 62.106.48.6 (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Right or wrong, we do not care about "The Truth". If you have reliable sources to verify such conclusions, we can add them. But we cannot add this based on your thinking, that would be original research and we cannot include such things here. Regards SoWhy 21:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

We already have a review source describing the game as a "thoroughly compelling work of cultural satire disguised as fun", but I think it'd make for unhelpfully undue weight to have this in the very first sentence of the lead (as per Schleife's original edit of "Grand Theft Auto IV is a sandbox-style action-adventure video game and satire developed by Rockstar North"). I don't see a problem with reintroducing it further in the lead, though. --McGeddon (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. If there are more sources saying so, why not? As you point out, the problem is WP:UNDUE - if only one reviewer thinks so, it can't be represented as a basic attribute of the game. Regards SoWhy 12:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Schleife - I will seek out these sources.

GTA IV will be released on Steam

I think this is a reliable source that GTA IV:PC vill be available via Steam:

http://store.steampowered.com/app/12210 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.177.183.165 (talk) 06:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The Lost and Damned

Out of interest, will we be creating a seperate article for this episodic pack in similar vein to other DLC episode/expansion packs? It also appears that TLAD will be adding some new gameplay as well as a new plot, and the article is already vastly extensive and adding such content to the article would make it quite convoluted. --.:Alex:. 17:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I expect we will be able to create a separate article considering how much coverage it's likely to get. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No. It will be included in the same article. There is no need to have a separate article --SkyWalker (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Not right now there's not, but I expect there will be many articles and interviews on the development of TLAD, obviously detail on plot and there'll be reception details to come too. Considering this article is 89kB already, if the expansion does get that much coverage then it'll be ripe for spinning out. We'll just have to wait and see. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

false information

"The game has two different endings, which are determined by decisions made by the player throughout and at the end of the game. Each choice affects the final missions the player can partake, and the fate of some characters." This is simply not true.The final ending is determined by what mission you choose at the end of the game not by various choices throughout the game.All the moral choices really do is change what dialog you get in some conversations,giving you some sort of perk,or give you some kind of side mission with a character you let survive.I am not sure how this stayed on wiki for so long.I would change it but any time i change something like that it gets changed back.I will give it a shot.Derelix (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

2 disks

The PC version is evidentally two DL disks. If we could get a source for this it might be worth mentioning it in the article. It's one of the first games I've seen with two dual layer DVDs Nil Einne (talk) 10:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Source?. I have two one is get the game and the other is this Disc 1 and Disc 2 --SkyWalker (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the 2 dual-layer theory is correct. I am still waiting for my copy to ship but I was curious how fast this game would be pirated, so I did a quick search and found out that illegal copies of the game circulate at 14GB. That means that each disk would have around 7 GB of data, too much for a single-layer DVD. But even if so and even when I get my copy, we still need a reliable source that says that this fact is somewhat notable. Regards SoWhy 09:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

HAS ANYONE HERE ACTUALLY BOUGHT THE DVD??? If anyone has, please tell me what the exact sizes of the dvds are. Reply here or on my talk page. Thanks! Karunyan (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It has 2 dual layer disk each 7 GB. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Updating critical reception

Now the PC version hit stores, I think the critical reception section should be updated soon to reflect newly-created criticism to the game. German PC game magazines already cover stories that the PC version has problems with ATI video adapters, that people are not buying because of the restrictive SecuROM and the bundle of software you have to install and of glitches and problems. But there is also praise for new modes, graphics and suchlikes with the PC version. My point is, all sources I found that cover the first part of what I said, the problems, are German. I am not native to an English-speaking country so I do not know, what PC gamer magazines exist there. If someone does, I think we can find some sources to update the section with critical reception specifically of the PC version. Regards SoWhy 11:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the install process can take up to 3 hours due to the problems with the PC version and that's assuming you know what you're doing. Plus, the only xbox360 controller supported issue should receive more attention. I'm amazed the other controller manufactures aren't suing Microsoft for this clear Monopolistic behavior.

err... pc ver sys reqs

funny how the recommended ati card is so much faster than the recommended nvidia card. just a thought... 90.227.47.238 (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

How can i download

In the media section "Download" is also written if it is true then how

can i download it Bilal2009 (talk) 07:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC) December 4 2008